Footprints in the Snow
(Sunday, September 9)
On the day following his decision, Markham and Vance and I were sitting in a secluded1 corner of the lounge-room of the Stuyvesant Club. We often came together there, for we were all members of the club, and Markham frequently used it as a kind of unofficial up-town headquarters.6
“It’s bad enough to have half the people in this city under the impression that the District Attorney’s office is a kind of high-class collection agency,” he remarked that night, “without being necessitated2 to turn detective because I’m not given sufficient evidence, or the right kind of evidence, with which to secure convictions.”
Vance looked up with a slow smile, and regarded him quizzically.
“The difficulty would seem to be,” he returned, with an indolent drawl, “that the police, being unversed in the exquisite3 abracadabra4 of legal procedure, labor5 under the notion that evidence which would convince a man of ordin’ry intelligence, would also convince a court of law. A silly notion, don’t y’ know. Lawyers don’t really want evidence: they want erudite technicalities. And the average policeman’s brain is too forthright6 to cope with the pedantic7 demands of jurisprudence.”
“It’s not as bad as that,” Markham retorted, with an attempt at good nature, although the strain of the past few weeks had tended to upset his habitual8 equanimity9. “If there weren’t rules of evidence, grave injustice10 would too often be done innocent persons. And even a criminal is entitled to protection in our courts.”
Vance yawned mildly.
“Markham, you should have been a pedagogue11. It’s positively12 amazin’ how you’ve mastered all the standard oratorical13 replies to criticism. And yet, I’m unconvinced. You remember the Wisconsin case of the kidnapped man whom the courts declared presumably dead. Even when he reappeared, hale and hearty14, among his former neighbors, his status of being presumably dead was not legally altered. The visible and demonstrable fact that he was actually alive was regarded by the court as an immaterial and impertinent side-issue.7 . . . Then there’s the touchin’ situation—so prevalent in this fair country—of a man being insane in one State and sane15 in another. . . . Really, y’ know, you can’t expect a mere16 lay intelligence, unskilled in the benign17 processes of legal logic18, to perceive such subtle nuances. Your layman19, swaddled in the darkness of ordin’ry common sense, would say that a person who is a lunatic on one bank of a river would still be a lunatic if he was on the opposite bank. And he’d also hold—erroneously, no doubt—that if a man was living, he would presumably be alive.”
“It seems to touch rather vitally on the source of your present predicament,” Vance explained equably. “The police, not being lawyers, have apparently22 got you into hot water, what? . . . Why not start an agitation23 to send all detectives to law school?”
“You’re a great help,” retorted Markham.
“Why disparage25 my suggestion? Surely you must perceive that it has merit. A man without legal training, when he knows a thing to be true, ignores all incompetent26 testimony27 to the contr’ry, and clings to the facts. A court of law listens solemnly to a mass of worthless testimony, and renders a decision not on the facts but according to a complicated set of rules. The result, d’ ye see, is that a court often acquits28 a prisoner, realizing full well that he is guilty. Many a judge has said, in effect, to a culprit: ‘I know, and the jury knows, that you committed the crime, but in view of the legally admissible evidence, I declare you innocent. Go and sin again.’ ”
Markham grunted30. “I’d hardly endear myself to the people of this county if I answered the current strictures against me by recommending law courses for the Police Department.”
“Permit me, then, to suggest the alternative of Shakespeare’s butcher: ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers.’ ”
“Unfortunately, it’s a situation, not a utopian theory, that has to be met.”
“And just how,” asked Vance lazily, “do you propose to reconcile the sensible conclusions of the police with what you touchingly31 call correctness of legal procedure?”
“To begin with,” Markham informed him, “I’ve decided32 henceforth to do my own investigating of all important night-club criminal cases. I called a conference of the heads of my departments yesterday, and from now on there’s going to be some real activity radiating direct from my office. I intend to produce the kind of evidence I need for convictions.”
Vance slowly took a cigarette from his case and tapped it on the arm of his chair.
“Ah! So you are going to substitute the conviction of the innocent for the acquittal of the guilty?”
“I won’t pretend not to understand your remark,” he said acidulously. “You’re back again on your favorite theme of the inadequacy34 of circumstantial evidence as compared with your psychological theories and æsthetic hypotheses.”
“Quite so,” agreed Vance carelessly. “Y’ know, Markham, your sweet and charmin’ faith in circumstantial evidence is positively disarming35. Before it, the ordin’ry powers of ratiocination36 are benumbed. I tremble for the innocent victims you are about to gather into your legal net. You’ll eventually make the mere attendance at any cabaret a frightful37 hazard.”
Markham smoked a while in silence. Despite the seeming bitterness at times in the discussions of these two men, there was at bottom no animosity in their attitude toward each other. Their friendship was of long standing38, and, despite the dissimilarity of their temperaments39 and the marked difference in their points of view, a profound mutual40 respect formed the basis of their intimate relationship.
“Why this sweeping42 deprecation of circumstantial evidence? I admit that at times it may be misleading; but it often forms powerful presumptive proof of guilt29. Indeed, Vance, one of our greatest legal authorities has demonstrated that it is the most powerful actual evidence in existence. Direct evidence, in the very nature of crime, is almost always unavailable. If the courts had to depend on it, the great majority of criminals would still be at large.”
“I was under the impression that this precious majority had always enjoyed its untrammelled freedom.”
Markham ignored the interruption.
“Take this example: A dozen adults see an animal running across the snow, and testify that it was a chicken; whereas a child sees the same animal, and declares it was a duck. They thereupon examine the animal’s footprints and find them to be the web-footed tracks made by a duck. Is it not conclusive43, then, that the animal was a duck and not a chicken, despite the preponderance of direct evidence?”
“And having gratefully accepted the gift,” pursued Markham, “I propound45 a corollary: A dozen adults see a human figure crossing the snow, and take oath it was a woman; whereas a child asserts that the figure was a man. Now, will you not also grant that the circumstantial evidence of a man’s footprints in the snow would supply incontrovertible proof that it was, in fact, a man, and not a woman?”
“Not at all, my dear Justinian,” replied Vance, stretching his legs languidly in front of him; “unless, of course, you could show that a human being possesses no higher order of brains than a duck.”
“What have brains to do with it?” Markham asked impatiently. “Brains don’t affect one’s footprints.”
“Not those of a duck, certainly. But brains might very well—and, no doubt, often do—affect the footprints of a human being.”
“Am I having a lesson in anthropology46, Darwinian adaptability47, or merely metaphysical speculation48?”
“In none of those abstruse49 subjects,” Vance assured him. “I’m merely stating a simple fact culled50 from observation.”
“Well, according to your highly and peculiarly developed processes of reasoning, would the circumstantial evidence of those masculine footprints indicate a man or a woman?”
“Not necessarily either,” Vance answered; “or, rather, a possibility of each. Such evidence, when applied51 to a human being—to a creature, that is, with a reasoning mind—would merely mean to me that the figure crossing the snow was either a man in his own shoes, or a woman in man’s shoes; or perhaps, even, a long-legged child. In short, it would convey to my purely52 unlegal intelligence only that the tracks were made by some descendant of the Pithecanthropus erectus wearing men’s shoes on his nether53 limbs—sex and age unknown. A duck’s spoors, on the other hand, I might be tempted54 to take at their face value.”
“I’m delighted to observe,” said Markham, “that, at least, you repudiate55 the possibility of a duck dressing56 itself up in the gardener’s boots.”
Vance was silent for a moment; then he said:
“The trouble with you modern Solons, d’ ye see, is that you attempt to reduce human nature to a formula; whereas the truth is that man, like life, is infinitely57 complex. He’s shrewd and tricky—skilled for centuries in all the most diabolical58 chicaneries59. He is a creature of low cunning, who, even in the normal course of his vain and idiotic60 struggle for existence, instinctively61 and deliberately62 tells ninety-nine lies to one truth. A duck, not having had the heaven-kissing advantages of human civilization, is a straightforward63 and eminently64 honest bird.”
“How,” asked Markham, “since you jettison65 all the ordinary means of arriving at a conclusion, would you decide the sex or species of this person who left the masculine footprints in the snow?”
Vance blew a spiral of smoke toward the ceiling.
“First, I’d repudiate all the evidence of the twelve astigmatic66 adults and the one bright-eyed child. Next, I’d ignore the footprints in the snow. Then, with a mind unprejudiced by dubious67 testimony and uncluttered with material clues, I’d determine the exact nature of the crime which this fleeing person had committed. After having analyzed68 its various factors, I could infallibly tell you not only whether the culprit was a man or a woman, but I could describe his habits, character, and personality. And I could do all this whether the fleeing figure left male or female or kangaroo tracks, or used stilts69, or rode off on a velocipede, or levitated70 without leaving tracks at all.”
Markham smiled broadly. “You’d be worse than the police in the matter of supplying me legal evidence, I fear.”
“I, at least, wouldn’t procure71 evidence against some unsuspecting person whose boots had been appropriated by the real culprit,” retorted Vance. “And, y’ know, Markham, as long as you pin your faith to footprints you’ll inevitably72 arrest just those persons whom the actual criminals want you to—namely, persons who have had nothing to do with the criminal conditions you’re about to investigate.”
He became suddenly serious.
“See here, old man; there are some shrewd intelligences at present allied73 with what the theologians call the powers of darkness. The surface appearances of many of these crimes that are worrying you are palpably deceptive74. Personally, I don’t put much stock in the theory that a malevolent75 gang of cut-throats have organized an American camorra, and made the silly night clubs their headquarters. The idea is too melodramatic. It smacks76 too much of the gaudy77 journalistic imagination: it’s too Eugène Sue-ish. Crime isn’t a mass instinct except during war-time, and then it’s merely an obscene sport. Crime, d’ ye see, is a personal and individual business. One doesn’t make up a partie carrée for a murder as one does for a bridge game. . . . Markham, old dear, don’t let this romantic criminological idea lead you astray. And don’t scrutinize78 the figurative footprints in the snow too closely. They’ll confuse you most horribly—you’re far too trustin’ and literal for this wicked world. I warn you that no clever criminal is going to leave his own footprints for your tape-measure and calipers79.”
“And have you paused to consider that your first case may even be devoid82 of footprints? . . . Alas83! What, then, will you do?”
“I could overcome that difficulty by taking you along with me,” suggested Markham, with a touch of irony84. “How would you like to accompany me on the next important case that breaks?”
“I am ravished by the idea,” said Vance.
Two days later the front pages of our metropolitan85 press carried glaring headlines telling of the murder of Margaret Odell.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
secluded
|
|
| adj.与世隔绝的；隐退的；偏僻的v.使隔开，使隐退( seclude的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
necessitated
|
|
| 使…成为必要，需要( necessitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
exquisite
|
|
| adj.精美的；敏锐的；剧烈的，感觉强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
abracadabra
|
|
| n.咒语，胡言乱语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
forthright
|
|
| adj.直率的，直截了当的 [同]frank | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
pedantic
|
|
| adj.卖弄学问的；迂腐的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
habitual
|
|
| adj.习惯性的；通常的，惯常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
equanimity
|
|
| n.沉着，镇定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
pedagogue
|
|
| n.教师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
positively
|
|
| adv.明确地，断然，坚决地；实在，确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
oratorical
|
|
| adj.演说的，雄辩的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
hearty
|
|
| adj.热情友好的；衷心的；尽情的，纵情的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
sane
|
|
| adj.心智健全的，神志清醒的，明智的，稳健的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
benign
|
|
| adj.善良的，慈祥的；良性的，无危险的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
layman
|
|
| n.俗人，门外汉，凡人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
dissertation
|
|
| n.（博士学位）论文，学术演讲，专题论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
irritably
|
|
| ad.易生气地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
agitation
|
|
| n.搅动；搅拌；鼓动，煽动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
eyebrows
|
|
| 眉毛( eyebrow的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
disparage
|
|
| v.贬抑，轻蔑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
acquits
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的第三人称单数 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
guilt
|
|
| n.犯罪；内疚；过失，罪责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
grunted
|
|
| （猪等）作呼噜声( grunt的过去式和过去分词 )； （指人）发出类似的哼声； 咕哝着说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
touchingly
|
|
| adv.令人同情地，感人地，动人地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
nettled
|
|
| v.拿荨麻打，拿荨麻刺（nettle的过去式与过去分词形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
disarming
|
|
| adj.消除敌意的，使人消气的v.裁军( disarm的现在分词 )；使息怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
ratiocination
|
|
| n.推理；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
temperaments
|
|
| 性格( temperament的名词复数 )； （人或动物的）气质； 易冲动； （性情）暴躁 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
sweeping
|
|
| adj.范围广大的，一扫无遗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
conclusive
|
|
| adj.最后的，结论的；确凿的，消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
acceded
|
|
| v.（正式）加入( accede的过去式和过去分词 )；答应；（通过财产的添附而）增加；开始任职 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
propound
|
|
| v.提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
anthropology
|
|
| n.人类学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
adaptability
|
|
| n.适应性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
speculation
|
|
| n.思索，沉思；猜测；投机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
abstruse
|
|
| adj.深奥的，难解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
culled
|
|
| v.挑选，剔除( cull的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
nether
|
|
| adj.下部的，下面的；n.阴间；下层社会 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
tempted
|
|
| v.怂恿（某人）干不正当的事；冒…的险（tempt的过去分词） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
repudiate
|
|
| v.拒绝，拒付，拒绝履行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
dressing
|
|
| n.(食物)调料；包扎伤口的用品，敷料 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
diabolical
|
|
| adj.恶魔似的，凶暴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
chicaneries
|
|
| n.耍花招哄骗别人（尤指于法律事务中）( chicanery的名词复数 )；不诚实的行为；欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
60
idiotic
|
|
| adj.白痴的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
instinctively
|
|
| adv.本能地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
deliberately
|
|
| adv.审慎地；蓄意地；故意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
straightforward
|
|
| adj.正直的，坦率的；易懂的，简单的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
eminently
|
|
| adv.突出地；显著地；不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
jettison
|
|
| n.投弃，投弃货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
astigmatic
|
|
| a.散光的，乱视的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
dubious
|
|
| adj.怀疑的，无把握的；有问题的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
analyzed
|
|
| v.分析( analyze的过去式和过去分词 )；分解；解释；对…进行心理分析 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
stilts
|
|
| n.（支撑建筑物高出地面或水面的）桩子，支柱( stilt的名词复数 )；高跷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
levitated
|
|
| v.（使）升空，（使）漂浮( levitate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
deceptive
|
|
| adj.骗人的，造成假象的，靠不住的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
malevolent
|
|
| adj.有恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
smacks
|
|
| 掌掴（声）( smack的名词复数 )； 海洛因； （打的）一拳； 打巴掌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
gaudy
|
|
| adj.华而不实的；俗丽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
scrutinize
|
|
| n.详细检查，细读 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
calipers
|
|
| n.书法，测径器；测径器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
bantering
|
|
| adj.嘲弄的v.开玩笑，说笑，逗乐( banter的现在分词 )；（善意地）取笑，逗弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
commiseration
|
|
| n.怜悯，同情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
devoid
|
|
| adj.全无的，缺乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
alas
|
|
| int.唉(表示悲伤、忧愁、恐惧等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
metropolitan
|
|
| adj.大城市的，大都会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |